Disposed¶28

Manish Kirit Salot v. Hitesh Kirit Salot and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Mar 2025WP/3932/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Specific Relief Act s.6 possession suit; interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC rejected; limited remit of s.6 inquiry (possession and dispossession; title immaterial); parallel title suit SCS No. 419 of 2019 challenging Gift Deed, partition sought; interim injunction application in title suit previously rejected; defendant's letter dated 21 March 2022 acknowledging plaintiff's possession; alleged forcible dispossession; fresh interim relief permissible in title suit on subsequent events; Civil Judge Belapur order dated 17 August 2024 upheld; Bombay High Court writ petition disposed with clarification.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; petition disposed with the Court's clarification that the plaintiff may move a fresh application for interim relief in title suit SCS No. 419 of 2019 founded on subsequent events.

Manish Kirit Salot vs Hitesh Kirit Salot and Ors. — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Civil Judge, Belapur rightly rejected the petitioner/plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC (restraint on creation of third party rights and deposit of interim profit) made in a suit for regaining possession under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

The remit of inquiry in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is limited: the factum of prior possession and dispossession of the plaintiff alone is to be adjudicated, and the question of title of the parties is immaterial.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

Since the plaintiff had already instituted a title suit, SCS No. 419 of 2019, assailing the legality and validity of the Gift Deed and seeking partition, the learned Civil Judge was fully justified in holding that the prayer for interim injunction in the suit for regaining possession under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was not tenable.

¶26

Key takeaways

Nothing precludes the plaintiff from filing a fresh application for interim relief in the title suit, SCS No. 419 of 2019, based on subsequent events (his alleged forcible dispossession after the letter dated 21st March, 2022 acknowledging his possession); with this clarification the petition stands disposed.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (N. J. Jamadar, J., Civil Appellate Jurisdiction; Writ Petition No.3932 of 2025, decided 26 March 2025): The petition challenged the Civil Judge, Belapur's order dated 17 August 2024 rejecting the petitioner/plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, made in a suit for regaining possession under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking to restrain defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from creating third party rights and to deposit interim profit. The Court held that the remit of inquiry in a Section 6 suit is limited to prior possession and dispossession, title being immaterial; and since a title suit, SCS No. 419 of 2019 (assailing the Gift Deed as fabricated and seeking partition) was already pending — wherein an interim injunction application had already been rejected — the prayer for interim injunction in the Section 6 suit was not tenable, and the Civil Judge was fully justified in refusing it. The Court further clarified that nothing precludes the plaintiff from filing a fresh application for interim relief in the title suit based on subsequent events (alleged forcible dispossession following the defendant's letter dated 21st March, 2022 acknowledging the plaintiff's possession). With this clarification, the petition stood disposed.

¶1

19-wp-3932-2025.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.3932 OF 2025

¶4

Manish Kirit Salot ...Petitioner

¶5

vs.

¶6

Hitesh Kirit Salot and Others ...Respondents

¶7

Mr. Kaushal Tamhane a/w. Mr. Nihar Chitre i/b. Dhanuka and Partners, for the Petitioner

¶8

Mr. P.V. Nelson Rajan, AGP for the State.

¶9

CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : MARCH 26, 2025

¶10

P.C:

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 17^th August,

¶13

2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Belapur whereby the application preferred by the petitioner/ plaintiff under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to restrain the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from creating third party rights in the suit property, and to deposit interim profit till decision of the suit instituted by the petitioner for regaining possession of the suit property under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, came to be rejected.

¶14

The learned Civil Judge was of the view that, in a suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 the Court was required to consider the aspect of dispossession of the plaintiff within six

...1

Vishal Parekar, PS

19-wp-3932-2025.doc

months of the institution of the suit. Since the plaintiff has already instituted a title suit being SCS No. 419 of 2019, the prayer for injunction can be legitimately considered in the said suit and not in a suit for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

¶19

Mr. Tamhane, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the defendant has admitted, in the communication addressed to the Cooperative Housing Society on 21^st March, 2022, that the plaintiff was in possession of the subject flat. Yet, taking the law in hand, the defendant has dispossessed the plaintiff. It was, therefore, necessary to restrain the defendant from creating third party right in the suit property till the decision of the suit.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the petitioner had filed an application for interim injunction in title suit being SCS No. 419 of 2019 and the said application came to be rejected.

¶21

The remit of inquiry in a Suit under Section 6 of the Act is limited. The factum of prior possession and dispossession of the plaintiff are required to be adjudicated. The question of title of the parties is immaterial. In the case at hand, the plaintiff had already instituted a title suit, being SCS No. 419 of 2019, assailing the legality and validity of the Gift Deed, purportedly executed by the

...2

Vishal Parekar, PS

19-wp-3932-2025.doc

father of the plaintiff in favour of the defendant. It was alleged that the said Gift Deed has been fabricated. In the said suit relief of partition has also been sought.

¶26

In these circumstances, the learned Civil Judge was fully justified in recording a view that in the instant suit for regaining possession under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the prayer for interim injunction was not tenable.

¶27

So far as the submission on behalf of the petitioner that, subsequent to the letter dated 21^st March, 2022, acknowledging the possession of the plaintiff, the later has been forcibly dispossessed, nothing precludes the plaintiff from filing a fresh application in the title suit being SCS No. 419 of 2019 seeking interim relief based on those subsequent events.

¶28

With the aforesaid clarification, the petition stands disposed.

¶29

(N. J. JAMADAR, J.)

¶30

...3

¶31

Vishal Parekar, PS

Manish Kirit Salot v. Hitesh Kirit Salot and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Kirit Salot v. Hitesh Kirit Salot and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhadra Anant Kesarkar vs Rukmini Vithoba Khedekar (Deceased)

Rajendra Shamrao Bhole vs Shri. Vyankatesh Balaji Sanstha , Nashik Thru Trustees and Ors.

The Ichalkaranji Electric Supply Company, Thr. Partner Shri. Manikchand Bansidhar Malu vs Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Thr. Executive Engineer and Anr.

Namrata Balkrishna Sharma vs Ajay Brijkishore Sharma

Anil Namdev Kandarkar vs Tahasildar Kolhapur

Subhadra Anant Kesarkar vs Rukmini Vithoba Khedekar (Deceased)